- #1

- 200

- 0

i am not sure if this is the right section to post this in but i think it may be the closest one.

Is there such a time when something is absolutly randome?

Is there such a time when something is absolutly randome?

Last edited:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter The Grimmus
- Start date

- #1

- 200

- 0

Is there such a time when something is absolutly randome?

Last edited:

- #2

Gold Member

- 612

- 1

- #3

- 333

- 1

I believe nothing is random AT ALL.

Everything has a certain mechanism, but sometimes people find it too hard to try to understand how a certain thing happens (or maybe they can't for technical reasons, or sometimes the variables are too much to count), but nothing is random.

I once put this topic on PF 2.0, i still remember most of the answers.

Some said that

Other said that HUP shows that the motion of a paritcle is random since we can't know the particle's place and velocity (ie momentum) at the same time.

Some answered on this idea that not knowing the velocity and place of the particle does not mean its motion is random.

- #4

- 200

- 0

ran·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rndm)

adj.

Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

well the last defantion just complicates things.

- #5

- 1,600

- 3

- #6

- 3,121

- 4

Even pure randomness represents a pattern, like entropy defining maximal disorder.

- #7

- 333

- 1

Can you please defineOriginally posted by Loren Booda

Even pure randomness represents a pattern, like entropy defining maximal disorder.

- #8

Gold Member

- 612

- 1

Cant you just say that pure randomness is when uncertainty is infinity

- #9

- 3,121

- 4

"pure" randomness=true randomness

_{?}

=maximal disorder

_{?}

=maximal uncertainty

=maximal disorder

=maximal uncertainty

- #10

- 333

- 1

A think is either random or not (and i do not believe in randomness anyway).

How can something be 'pure-random' and something be random, but not 'pure-random' ?

you said :

Well i don't think so, cause there is no?

=maximal uncertainty

And, from your post before this one, you said :

Which is somehow paradoxial, cause if it represents a pattern, it is not random anymore ! (is it ?)Even pure randomness represents a pattern

(I am sad that the confused smiley was deleted in the new forums, it was quite useful for situations like this one).

- #11

Gold Member

- 612

- 1

Well, "random" would be the casual form of random...the way we use it every day...you pick a marble out of a bag..you are randomly picking marbles, however I am sure you would agree that this is not perfectly randomOriginally posted by STAii

How can something be 'pure-random' and something be random, but not 'pure-random' ?

"pure random" would be the theoretical random, and that's the definition we are trying to establish here...

Ok...how about this...digits of e...seemlingly random, but there is a definite pattern to the way they were established(1+1/1!+1/2!+1/3!...i think that's the way its defined..lol i forgot already) and pi, i think if u analyze the digits, and i don't know if they have, but i would think there would be about the same number of each digit, however the way it was found has a definite pattern(the equations used to calculate it)Which is somehow paradoxial, cause if it represents a pattern, it is not random anymore ! (is it ?)

- #12

- 191

- 0

This is a personal opinion...

I would define randomness in connection with a certain observer...

It would be inverse proportional with the quantity of information we have about that "random" system...randomness=k*entropy...

I believe randomness can't be 0...in any case...because in the case of a 3D object we can't have all the information it contains...just the information we can "see" through the surface it has...

I would define randomness in connection with a certain observer...

It would be inverse proportional with the quantity of information we have about that "random" system...randomness=k*entropy...

I believe randomness can't be 0...in any case...because in the case of a 3D object we can't have all the information it contains...just the information we can "see" through the surface it has...

Last edited:

- #13

- 3,121

- 4

Pink noise would be "random," white noise, under my definition, would be "truly random."

Try predicting the pattern of white noise. One can't, that's why I call it "maximally uncertain."

The pattern of white noise is that it is unpredictable!

- #14

- 8

- 0

A complete inability to predict the outcome of an event. I.e. one outcome has the same probabilty of occurance as any other. Thus a single coin tos is totally random. A dual coin toss may be random depending on what you are observing. If order is important then HT and TH do not represent the same result and the event is random. If however order is not as important then the result of obtaining at least one head and one tail is twice as likely as as ant other result and so we can calulate an expectation value for the event.

- #15

- 1,600

- 3

- #16

- 8

- 0

- #17

- 191

- 0

For example...do you know the random numbers generator used on computers ? Actually it follows a simple rule (is something like x Mod 29...or something like this...) If you don't know the rule the numbers seem to be random...but if you know the rule...no more randomness...

- #18

- 333

- 1

I totally agree on this.Originally posted by FZ+

But some people may sart arguing saying that that the aerodynamics cannot be totally known, since they depend on the air molecules, and we don't know the place and speed (therefore momentum) of the air particle at the same time at any given moment (assuming we are welling to calculate everything so accurately that we would observe each air molecule around the coin).

I would personalyl reply on people like those, suppose we were found as the universe started, we would be able to know the speed and position of each atom at that time (mainly depends on how you believe the universe started).

Tracking all those enormous information, we would be able to know the position and speed (only depending on the data gathered at the universe begining) of any particle.

I don't know if Greg would read this topic, but if he does i would really appreciate if he checks the database of PF2 for a similar topic in the mathematics forum (it is not really old, so maybe it would be found in the second or third page), or maybe anyone that has the archive of PF2.

Thanks in advance.

- #19

- 8

- 0

If you went and measured the speed and position of every atom or particle at the start of the universe, where would you store this information and how would you calculate the time evolution of this system, as every particle would need at least another particle to store this information. And the 3 position coordinates and 3 momentum coordinates are as compressed as the information can get. Thus randomness in inherent in the universe because it is IMPOSSIBLE to know all this information at once.

- #20

- 333

- 1

Just think of it as a

Or simply don't think too much about where it will be stored, maybe in another universe .

(OK, my point is weak (like always !))

- #21

- 3,121

- 4

Can our seemingly non-random universe arise from a truly random quantum mechanics?

- #22

- 191

- 0

Yes...

(my opinion)

(my opinion)

- #23

- 3,121

- 4

Then there's the difference between random and pseudorandom.

- #24

- 191

- 0

- #25

- 56

- 0

- Albert Einstein

".. So, in conclusion, God does indeed play dice, and he tosses them at every turn"

- Stephen Hawking

- KillaMarcilla

PS: The Hawking quote might be a little off, but that's more or less what he said

- #26

- 398

- 0

which I've thought about quite a bit. It seems that if you make one quantity radom, you can always find other related quantities which are less than purely random. So I personally believe it is not possible to make something, a set for instance, that is purely random.

- #27

- 200

- 0

wait you mean like X +1=6 than x isent randome but undefined? or...

Share:

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 638

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 474

- Replies
- 22

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 730

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 570

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 858

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 2K